predicting social responsibility and belonging in urban

Wayne State University

Kinesiology, Health and Sport Studies College of Education

5-17-2016

Predicting Social Responsibility and Belonging inUrban After-School Physical Activity Programswith Underserved ChildrenJeffry J. MartinWayne State University, [email protected]

Brigid ByrdWayne State University, [email protected]

Alex GarnLouisiana State University

Nate McCaughtryWayne State University, [email protected]

Noel KulikWayne State University, [email protected]

See next page for additional authors

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Education at DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusionin Kinesiology, Health and Sport Studies by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WayneState.

Recommended CitationMartin, J., Byrd, B., Garn, A., McCaughtry, N., Kulik, N., & Centeio, E.E. (2016). Predicting social responsibility and belonging inurban after school physical activity programs with underserved children. The Urban Review, 48(3), 403-418. doi: 10.1007/s11256-016-0360-2Available at: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/coe_khs/64

http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/



http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/coe_khs

http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/coe

https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11256-016-0360-2

https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11256-016-0360-2

AuthorsJeffry J. Martin, Brigid Byrd, Alex Garn, Nate McCaughtry, Noel Kulik, and Erin Centeio

This article is available at DigitalCommons@WayneState: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/coe_khs/64

http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/coe_khs/64

Running head: Physical Activity Clubs Martin 1

Predicting Social Responsibility and Belonging in Urban After-School Physical Activity

Programs with Underserved Children

Jeffrey J. Martin & Brigid Byrd


Alex Garn

Louisiana State University

Nate McCaughtry, Noel Kulik, & Erin Centeio


Physical Activity Clubs Martin 2

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this cross sectional study was to predict feelings of belonging and social

responsibility based on the motivational climate perceptions and contingent self-worth of children

participating in urban after-school physical activity programs. Method: Three-hundred and four

elementary school students from a major Midwestern city participated. Results: Based on multiple

regression analyses we predicted 39% of the variance in feelings of belonging largely due to

perceptions of leadership emotional support and task climate and 31% of the variance in feelings

of social responsibility largely due to perceptions of a caring climate. Conclusions: Our findings

support the importance of after school physical activity programs, which appear to provide

nurturing environments that may contribute to feelings of belonging and social responsibility.

Keywords: Health, motivational climate, self-esteem


Predicting Social Responsibility and Belonging in Urban After-School Physical Activity Clubs

with Underserved Children

The high rates of overweight and obesity among children in the USA has, in part, fueled research

efforts into how to promote physical activity (PA). Researchers have recently sought to understand

the role and effectiveness that innovative and non-traditional activities (e.g., after school PA clubs)

might play in promoting both PA and enhancing psychosocial development (Atkin, Gorely, Biddle,

Cavill, & Foster, 2011; Beets, Beighle, Erwin, & Huberty, 2009).

The ways in which such voluntary programs are viewed by participants is critical for maximizing

youth participation. For example, a long history of research into sport and PA participation

motivation indicates that if children do not enjoy their PA or social experiences they will not

participate or will drop-out (Martin, 2006; Ullrich-French & Smith, 2009). Although research in

PA engagement in after-school programs is increasing, very little work examining the psychosocial

dynamics involving the participants of such programs exists (Garn et al., 2014).

After-school PA programs, in contrast with more traditional settings (e.g., physical education)

where participation is mandatory, represent relatively new initiatives that are not well understood.

However, the limited evidence in this area suggests that effective programs only target PA (i.e.,

versus weight gain prevention or targeting nutrition and PA), are located in schools versus

community settings, and are theory based (Atkin et al., 2011). Researchers have shown that sport

and PA based positive youth development (PYD) programs can enhance children’s self-esteem,

quality of life, social responsibility and body image perceptions (Amorose, & Riley, 2013; Ullrich-

French, McDonough, & Smith, 2012). It is particularly important to examine after-school PA

programs because the decrease in traditional physical education means after-school programs are

becoming increasingly important as vehicles for PA engagement. Additionally, children from inner


city urban environments tend to get less PA and are more overweight and obese compared to

children from non-urban settings (Skinner & Skelton, 2014). We do not know if after-school PA

based programs in urban settings offer psychological benefits. However, the limited research on

after-school PA programs in urban settings suggests they have the potential to promote favorable

psychosocial outcomes. For example, Garn et al. (2014) reported that high school students across

14 urban inner city after-school PA programs cited the PA club leaders as one of the most critical

components in having a successful after-school club. Leaders who were caring, supportive, and

promoted positive student interactions were viewed as exemplary leaders. In the current study we

examined three types of motivational climates that are often highly contingent on PA program

leaders’ behaviors.

Two of the three motivational climates (i.e., ego and task) have their roots in a long history

of achievement goal theory and research in both academics (Nicholls, 1984) and sport (Duda &

Nicholls, 1992). PA club leaders, who create task-oriented motivational climates focusing on

personal mastery, promote cooperation, and who facilitate the inclusion of every participant,

regardless of skill level, are important. Conversely, leaders who create an ego-oriented

motivational climate rewarding superior abilities create contests and rivalries among participants,

and discipline participants for making mistakes, marginalize many of the participants involved in

these types of programs (Newton et al., 2007a). When athletes perceive a task-oriented

motivational climate, they are more likely to have positive attitudes and greater commitment to

their sport (Fry & Gano-Overway, 2010). MacDonald and colleagues (2011) found that positive

sport experiences such as social and cognitive skill development are predicted by athletes’

perceptions of a task climate, positive peer relationships, self-referenced skill assessment, and high

effort expenditure. Self-referenced skill assessment and effort are critical elements of a task


climate. In contrast, an ego climate predicted negative sport experiences (MacDonald, Côté, Eys,

& Deakin, 2011).

In addition to a task and ego climate, a more contemporary line of research emphasizing

social responsibility is caring climate work (Newton et al., 2007a) which is the third motivational

climate we examined. A caring climate is evident when program participants perceive the

atmosphere as inviting, supportive and safe. Teammate and leader relationships are viewed as

warm, close, and supportive. Children who have positive relationships with their peers and after-

school PA program leaders feel respected and cared about. As a function of feeling respected and

cared about, it is plausible that such feelings may then lead to positive psychological outcomes

such as enhanced social responsibility and belongingness (Fry & Gano-Overway, 2010; Newton

et al., 2007b). The three motivational climates are not mutually exclusive and often task and caring

climates are positively related whereas an ego climate is often negatively related to a caring and

task climate.

In addition to the aforementioned three climates (i.e., task, ego, care), we also examined a

relatively new construct that has received little attention in the youth PA literature: contingent

competitive self-esteem. The concept of contingent self-esteem is a recent development

augmenting traditional conceptions of self-esteem. The traditional view of self-esteem is that high

self-esteem is beneficial whereas low self-esteem is deleterious. Crocker and Wolfe (2001) argue

that the domain that individuals garner their self-esteem from (e.g., sport versus academics) and

the degree to which their self-esteem is contingent or non-contingent is vital. Individuals with

contingent self-esteem base their self-worth on outside contingencies that are often unstable such

as approval from others or achievement (e.g., earning an A in school). Individuals with non-

contingent self-esteem typically ground their self-worth in internal contingencies that represent


unique and core qualities of the self. Such non-contingent internal contingencies are thought to be

much more stable and reliable sources of self-regard. Contingent self-esteem is considered to be

domain specific. In the current study, we specifically examined “competition” contingent self-

esteem given its relevance to sport and PA contexts relative to other far less relevant domains (e.g.,

academic, religion: Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003).

A major reason for assessing task, ego and caring climates along with contingent self-

esteem was to predict our two outcome variables: social responsibility and belongingness.

Belonging is an individual’s feelings of “engagement in, commitment to, and connectedness” to

leaders and peers within their PA program (McDonough et al., 2012, p. 9). The creation of a sense

of a belonging is a critical goal of sport and PA based programs because feelings of belonging

contribute to continued participation (Anderson-Butcher & Conroy, 2002).

Social responsibility is our second outcome construct and is defined as “acting respectfully,

responsibly, fairly, and cooperatively with others” in their PA or sport program (McDonough et

al., 2012, p. 10).

The influence of contingent self-esteem on positive psychosocial outcomes should vary

depending on student’s perceptions of the climate. For instance, a student with very strong

contingent self-esteem may be particularly vulnerable to an ego climate resulting in a weak sense

of belonging. In contrast, the same student may feel quite positive when exposed to a task and

caring climate resulting in strong positive feelings of belonging and social responsibility.

Furthermore, strong and salient caring and task climates combined with weak ego climates and

non-contingent competitive self-esteem should be positively related to belonging and social

responsibility.. In contrast, weak task and caring climates, strong ego climates and contingent

competitive self-esteem should be linked to reduced belonging and social responsibility.


The development of social responsibility in PA settings can often transfer to other settings

outside of sport such as showing respect to others in an academic setting (McDonough et al., 2012).

Children with non-contingent competitive self-esteem, who perceive their after-school PA

program as possessing a caring and task climate, and a minimal ego climate, should also express

a strong sense of belonging and social responsibility. Caring climates should promote a sense of

belonging because youth who perceive they are genuinely cared for and supported by program

peers and leaders should develop feelings of commitment and connectedness to the program. A

task climate may also lead to social responsibility because team work, cooperation and effort are

emphasized. According to Coakley (2011) virtually all research aimed at substantiating the value

of youth sport and PA participation is grounded in an individualistic perspective with a goal of

determining if participation builds psychological based qualities (e.g., self-efficacy, life skills).

Coakley (2011) argues that researchers have been remiss by not examining if sport and PA

participation produces broader social benefits. Hence, our assessment of social responsibility

addresses this perceived shortcoming in an urban setting with underserved children.

There is limited psychological based research on after-school PA programs, especially in

urban settings. For example, a 2010 narrative review produced only ten papers on after-school PA

clubs and some studies included competitive sports (e.g., football), took place in non-school

community settings, or diverged in other significant ways (e.g., obese children only) from the

current study (Atkin, Gorely, Biddle, Cavill, & Foster, 2011). A 2009 meta-analysis also reported

on a paucity (i.e., 11 studies) of research in this area (Beets, Beighle, Erwin & Huberty, 2009).

Although researchers have established the value of motivational climates, research on caring

climates is less prevalent and research on contingent competitive self-esteem in PA settings

appears non-existent. We also know of no research examining if motivational climates (i.e., task


and ego), and caring climates and contingent competitive self-esteem predict belongingness and

social responsibility. Finally, we also sought to provide greater insight into how important socially

based influences, such as motivational climates, might interact with important personal

characteristics, such as contingent competitive self-esteem, to influence belongingness and social

responsibility. Therefore, we also examined all potential two-way interactions. Although our

analyses of the interactions are exploratory in nature there are theoretical propositions for positing

them. We offer three potential examples next: First, the deleterious effects of an ego climate on

belongingness and social responsibility should be offset by both strong task and caring climates.

Additionally, children with high contingent competitive self-esteem are very dependent on

external contingencies such as adult and peer feedback to feel good about their involvement in

after-school PA programs. Therefore, we anticipated that under conditions of high ego or low task

and caring climates, children with contingent competitive self-esteem may express weak feelings

of social responsibility and belongingness. Finally, the positive influence of task and caring

climates may augment non-contingent competitive self-esteem to produce strong feelings of

belongingness and social responsibility (Crocker et al., 2003; Fry & Gano-Overway, 2010; Newton

et al., 2007).

To summarize, the purpose of the current study was to determine if task, ego, and caring

climates, and contingent competitive self-esteem predicted feelings of belonging and social

responsibility of children involved in an urban based after school PA program. It was hypothesized

that children who perceived the program as having a strong caring and task climate, and weak ego

climate along with lower contingent competitive self-esteem would report strong self-perceptions

of belonging and social responsibility. In addition to the above main effects we also conducted a

series of exploratory analyses examining all possible two-way interactions between the three


climates and competitive contingent self-esteem. This was done to determine if the interactions

would predict additional variance in belongingness and social responsibility beyond the main

effects.

Method

Participants

A sample of 304 elementary school children (male = 149, female = 139, missing = 16)

between the ages of 8 to 12 years old (M = 9.30, SD = 1.11) from an urban city in the Midwest

participated. Participants had multiple ethnic backgrounds (44.2% Black, 36.1% White, 9.2%

Multi-racial, 6.3% did not report, 2.3% Hispanic, 1.4% Asian American, 0.3% Arab American).

We considered our participants “underserved” because they were from an urban area and county

facing a significant economic depression and the poverty level (24.5% to 38.4%) is one of the

highest in the country (U.S. Census Bureau, 20118).

After school PA Clubs

Data was collected at 14 schools that held after school PA programs titled Healthy Kids

Club (HKC) over a two year period. Data was collected by a team of trained data collectors about

a month into the semester to allow children to become familiar with the HKCs. Data collection

took an average of 20 minutes. The HKC was a free after school program that included 40 minutes

of physical activity lead by a trained HKC leader. Each leader participated in an hour workshop

and was provided educational material to assist them with conducting the after school program.

Children met an average of 22.25 sessions over a 7 month period. An average of 22 children

attended each session depending on the school and day.


Measures

All measures were previously constructed with developmental considerations in mind.

Additionally all the instruments employed in the current study have been used before with similar

aged participants producing adequate reliability scores (Anderson-Butcher & Conroy, 2002;

Anderson-Butcher, Wade-Mdivanian, Riley, & Davis, 2010; Cohen & Cohen, 1975; Cox &

Williams, 2008; Newton et al., 2007a). Evidence for validity in previous research (e.g., construct,

convergent, divergent) has also been established.

Demographic scale. The demographic information provided by students included their

gender, age, and race/ethnicity.

Motivational climate. The motivational climate was assessed with the Perceived

Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire (PMCSQ) (Seifriz, Duda, & Chi, 1992). Two

subscales measure a task climate (9 items) and an ego climate (12 items) each. Participants answer

on a 5 point scale with 1 representing “strongly disagree” and 5 representing “strongly agree.” A

sample task climate item is: “Each student has an important role.” A sample ego climate item is

“The group leader favors some students” Scores are summed and divided by 9 or 12 to obtain

mean scores for both a task climate and ego climate. Evidence of satisfactory internal consistency

(α = .80-.84) and validity has been established (Seifriz et al., 1992). A confirmatory factor analysis

has also established construct validity (Walling, Duda, & Chi, 1993).

Caring climate. The Caring Climate Scale (CCS) (Newton et al., 2007a) was used to

measure participant’s perceptions of how caring they viewed the PA club climate. Newton and

colleagues (2007a) have established initial validity with adolescents. The CCS has 13 items using

a 5 point Likert scale. One is represented by “strongly disagree” and 5 by “strongly agree.” A

sample item is “The leaders of my PA club care about kids.” Scores are summed and divided by


13 to obtain a mean CCS score. Adequate internal consistency (α = .92) and construct, discriminant

and convergent validity have been established via confirmatory factor analysis (Newton et al.,

2007b). Subsequent research has also supported the validity and reliability of the scale (Newton et

al., 2007a; Fry & Gano-Overway, 2010; Fry et al., 2012).

Contingent Competition Self-Esteem. We used the competition contingent self-esteem

scale developed by Crocker and colleagues (2003) to measure self-esteem that is dependent upon

performing better than others. The scale consists of 5 questions answered on a 7 point Likert scale

with 1 representing “strongly disagree” and 5 representing “strongly agree.” An example question

is; “I feel worthwhile when I perform better than others on a task or skill.” Scores are summed and

divided by 5 to obtain a mean score. Crocker et al. (2003) provided evidence of satisfactory validity

through 2,000 participants in two studies that established internal reliability, test-retest reliability,

predictive, convergent, discriminant, and construct validity.

Belonging. Anderson-Butcher and Conroy’s (2002) measure of belonging in youth

programs was used to assess participant’s perceptions of belonging within the PA clubs. The scale

consists of 5 questions answered on a 5 point Likert scale with 1 representing “not at all true” and

5 representing “really true.” An example question is; “I am supported at my PA club.” Scores are

summed and divided by 5 to obtain a mean belonging score. Anderson-Butcher and Conroy (2002)

have provided evidence of satisfactory validity (i.e., construct validity via confirmatory factor

analysis), predictive and convergent validity, and adequate internal reliability (α = .96). The

measure has also performed well (e.g., demonstrated validity and reliability) in similarly aged

samples and sport contexts (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2013).

Social responsibility. The Social Sports Experiences Scale (SSES) was used to measure

social responsibility in PA (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2010). The scale has 8 items that are answered


on a 5 point Likert scale with 1 representing “not at all true” and 5 representing “really true.” An

example item is; “I act responsibly when playing sports and doing PA.” Scores are summed and

divided by 8 for a mean social responsibility score. Satisfactory internal consistency (α = .85) and

construct validity via confirmatory factor analyses have been reported (McDonough et al., 2012)

and research with similar settings and participants has also demonstrated that the SSES produces

valid and reliable scores (Anderson-Butcher, Riley, Amorose, & Ball, 2013).

Procedures

Permission from the University Internal Review Board, the school district office, school

principals, after school program leaders and students was obtained. Parents were notified through

an information letter and were asked to respond if they did not want their child to participate in

the study. Multiple data collectors collected data during meeting times for after school PA clubs.

One data collector read each question out loud while participants followed along reading and

answering each question. Any questions participants had about particular items were addressed by

data collectors before moving on to subsequent questions.

Results

Preliminary results. Data were screened for outliers and normality. We then checked the

data for missing values and mean imputation was used for 9 missing data points of 3 variables.

Data were also screened for outliers and normality. Participants’ scale completion scores produced

alpha coefficients indicative of satisfactory reliability (See Table 1). Means, standard deviations,

ranges, skewness, kurtosis, and Pearson product correlations can all be found in Table 1. Finally,

prior to running the regression analyses, tolerance (.38 - .64) and variance inflation factors (1.55-

2.66) ranges were examined, suggesting there was no evidence of multicollinearity (Cohen, Cohen,

West, & Aiken, 2003). A brief visual overview of the descriptive data (i.e., M’s) relative to the


scale end points indicates that most participants perceived a strong caring and task climate and

reported being high in belonging and social responsibility. Participants reported a moderate ego

climate and contingent competitive self-esteem.

Multiple Regression Results. Two multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to

examine the ability of the three motivational climates and competition contingent self-esteem to

predict belonging and social responsibility. All four variables were entered in a block to test for

main effects. Then in a second block all six two-way interactions were entered. For the interactions

all predictor variables were mean-centered and all possible two-way interaction terms (i.e.,

between all three climates and contingent competitive self-esteem) were created from the cross-

product scores (Cohen et al., 2003). Graphic plots were used to interpret significant interactions

with low = -1 standard deviation and high = +1 standard deviation.

For belongingness, the main effects model was statistically significant, F (4,299) = 44.50,

p<.001. Adding the block of interaction variables was also significant F (10, 293) = 19.05, p <.

001 and we accounted for 39% of the variance (R2 = 0.39; see Table 2) in belonging. Belonging

was primarily predicted by the main effects of a caring climate (p < .001, standardized β = 0.43),

a task climate (p < .001, standardized β = 0.23), and low perceptions of an ego climate (p < .001,

standardized β = -.13). The interaction (see Figure 1) of a caring climate and competition

contingent self-esteem was also significant (p < .08¹, standardized β = 0.12).

The main effects model for social responsibility was significant, F (4,299) = 27.98, p<.001.

Adding the block of interaction variables was also significant F (10, 293) = 13.40, p <. 001 and

we accounted for 31% of the variance (R2 = 0.31; see Table 3). Social responsibility was predicted

by two main effects, strong perceptions of a caring climate (p < .001, standardized β = 0.46) and a

negative relationship with competition contingent self-esteem (p < .05, standardized β = -0.12).


Additionally, three interactions were also significant. A competition contingent self-esteem and

caring climate interaction (p < .01, standardized β = 0.19), a task and ego climate interaction (p <

.02, standardized β = .18), and an ego and caring climate interaction (p < .04, standardized β = -

0.15). These three interactions are depicted in Figures 2 to 4. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) for multiple

regression analyses were as follows for social responsibility (Cohen’s d = 1.35) and for belonging

(Cohen’s d = 1.62) and both effect sizes are considered large (Cohen, 1988).

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to determine if task, ego and caring motivational

climates and competition contingent self-esteem predicted feelings of belonging and social

responsibility of underserved children enrolled in an urban after-school PA program. In general

our correlational findings supported expected associations among our various predictor and

outcome variables. However, the regression equations highlight the most critical predictor

variables. Three main effects were significant as favorable perceptions of both a caring and task

climate positively predicted feelings of belonging. Perceptions of an ego climate were negatively

related to feelings of belonging. All three of these findings support our hypotheses and are in line

with previous research in this area, that also focuses on children considered to be underserved (i.e.,

low social economic status; Gould, Flett, & Lauer, 2012; McDonough et al., 2012; Ullrich-French

& McDonough, 2013). For example, in a study that produced findings similar to the current study,

belonging was significantly correlated with a host of positive psychosocial constructs such as self-

esteem, social competence and attraction to PA (Ullrich-French & McDonough, 2013). A unique

finding of the current study is that all three climates were significant in predicting belonging in the

expected directions. These findings are in line with similar research in which a caring, ego and

mastery climate all significantly predicted positive developmental experiences with middle school


children in sport leagues from the same urban setting as where the current study was conducted

(Gould et al., 2012).

A task climate likely leads to a feeling of belonging because in a task climate cooperation

and team work are emphasized. A caring climate also likely leads to feelings of belonging because

feeling cared about by other children and program leaders likely increases a desire to be part of

the group (i.e., belonging). Finally, perceptions of an ego climate were negatively related to

belonging. Ego climates often reflect social comparison processes whereby children are judged

relative to other children and competitive versus cooperative processes are emphasized. Such

climates, as evidenced in the current results, often serve to undermine feelings of mutual affection

and belonging.

Although contingent competitive self-esteem did not predict belongingness, it moderated

the relationship between caring and belonging as evident by the significant interaction (see Figure

1). Children with high contingent competitive self-esteem had a more fluctuating sense of

belonging depending on their perceptions of the caring climate relative to the children with low

contingent self-esteem. Under conditions of a low caring climate, children with high contingent

competitive self-esteem had the lowest sense of belonging but under perceptions of a high caring

climate they had the highest sense of belonging. In contrast, children with low contingent

competitive self-esteem had more stable feelings of belonging that did not fluctuate as much

according to the caring climate.

In contrast to the three main effects predicting belonging two main effects, a caring climate

and contingent competitive self-esteem, were significant, in expected directions, predicting social

responsibility. Children who perceived a strong caring climate reported strong feelings of social

responsibility. Children with strong contingent competitive self-esteem reported lower feelings of


social responsibility. In addition to the two main effects, there were 3 significant interactions.

Similar to the significant interaction predicting belonging, the same variables (i.e., caring climate

and contingent competitive self-esteem) interacted in a similar pattern to predict social

responsibility (see Figure 2). Children with high contingent competitive self-esteem had a more

fluctuating sense of social responsibility depending on their perceptions of the caring climate

relative to the children with low contingent competitive self-esteem. Under conditions of a low

caring climate children with high contingent competitive self-esteem had the lowest sense of social

responsibility but under perceptions of a high caring climate they had the highest sense of social

responsibility. In contrast, children with low contingent competitive self-esteem had more stable

feelings of social responsibility that did not strongly fluctuate according to the caring climate.

Children with low contingent competitive self-esteem had social responsibility and

belonging scores (see Figure 1 and 2) for low and high caring climates that fell in between the

social responsibility and belonging scores obtained under low and high caring climates for children

with high contingent competitive self-esteem. Both significant interactions involved the caring

climate and contingent competitive self-esteem predicting belongingness and social responsibility.

These two findings support the theoretical proposition that individuals with high contingent self-

esteem are more vulnerable to negative affective outcomes relative to individuals with lower

contingent self-esteem (Crocker et al., 2003; Crocker & Wolfe, 2001).

The final two interactions both involved the ego climate predicting social responsibility

and were dependent on children’s perceptions of whether the task and caring climates were viewed

as high or low (see Figures 3 and 4). Irrespective of children’s perceptions of the ego climate (i.e.,

high or low) they expressed more social responsibility when they also viewed the climate as high

in caring compared to having lower perceptions of the caring climate (see Figure 3). Unexpectedly,


a high ego climate along with a low caring climate was linked with greater social responsibility

compared to a low caring and low ego climate. This finding was unexpected as under conditions

of a low caring climate a high ego climate was expected to be associated with less and not more

social responsibility.

For the last interaction, children perceiving a high ego climate expressed greater social

responsibility if they also perceived a high task climate (see Figure 4). In contrast, if children

viewed the climate as both high ego and low task their feelings of social responsibility dropped.

Children with high ego and low task climate perceptions had lower social responsibility

perceptions compared to children with low ego and low task climate perceptions. Thus, under

conditions of a low task climate children also perceiving the ego climate as high produced lower

social responsibility compared to a low ego climate suggesting the combination of low task and

high ego reduced social responsibility. In general our interactions (3 of 4) were aligned with the

theoretical tenants of both goal orientation theory and contingent self-esteem principles. While the

variance accounted for was small these findings are consistent with previous youth development

research (Benson, Scales, Hamilton, & Sesma, 2006). Additionally, small effects are not

necessarily trivial because if findings are robust in cross-sectional research the influence of factors

such as a caring climate can have cumulative effects over time (Abelson, 1985; Cortina & Landis,

2009; Prentice & Miller, 1992).

Our research findings extent the current literature in four significant ways. First,

psychological based research on urban based after-school PA clubs is scarce relative to more

traditional PA settings (e.g., youth sport, physical education). Second, we examined both feelings

of belonging and social responsibility as outcome variables. Both outcome variables are critical in

enhancing psychosocial development in PA environments. Third, we also examined multiple


dimensions of the climate with a focus on the caring climate which is a newer research area relative

to the historical focus researchers have had on task and ego climates. Finally, our examination of

contingent competitive self-esteem has, to our knowledge, not been done in PA settings.

Furthermore, our examination of the interactions among contingent competitive self-worth and the

three climates proved a fruitful avenue of investigation given the four significant interactions we

found. We were able to explain a large amount of variance of both outcome variables as we

accounted for 39 % of the variance in feelings of belonging and 31% of the variance in social

responsibility with large effect sizes (Cohen & Cohen, 1975). Limitations to the current study

include the correlational nature of our design that precludes asserting cause and effect dynamics.

In summary, we found that underserved children participating in an after-school PA

program who experienced strong task and caring climates and minimal ego climates expressed a

strong feeling of belonging. Youth who experienced a strong caring climate and lower contingent

competitive self-esteem also reported a strong sense of social responsibility. Finally, four

significant interactions also suggest that perceptions of the climate in predicting belonging and

social responsibility are also, to a small degree, dependent on context specific (i.e., competitive)

contingent self-esteem. These findings add to the body of knowledge on urban based after-school

PA programs by highlighting the value of motivational climates and contingent competitive self-

esteem in predicting belongingness and social responsibility with an understudied population. In

ending we should also note that factors outside of the psychosocial internal dynamics of urban

after-school PA clubs also determine how successfully (e.g., well attended) they function. Such

factors (e.g., transportation, facilities, and competing interests among participants) are also critical

(Maljak et al., 2014). The degree to which adults leading after-school PA clubs consider


psychosocial factors, like the ones reported on in the current paper, and the environmental factors

noted by Maljak et al. (2012), will determine the success of after-school PA clubs in increasing

PA and combating obesity.

Footnote. Given the dearth of research in this area it was determined that making a Type II error

would be more serious than making a Type I error. Therefore a p value of .10 was selected for

determining statistical significance. Additionally we believe that effect size (i.e., variance

accounted for) is of value and should not be dismissed simply because p > .05 (Cohen, 1994;

Franks & Huck, 1986).

Acknowledgements. This research was made possible through the generous support of Blue Cross

Blue Shield of Michigan, the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation, the United Dairy

Industry of Michigan, Gopher Sports and the Michigan Department of Community Health.

References

Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological

Bulletin, 97, 129-133

Atkin, A. J., Gorely, T., Biddle, S. J., Cavill, N., & Foster, C. (2011). Interventions to promote

physical activity in young people conducted in the hours immediately after school: a

systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18, 176-187.

Anderson-Butcher, D., & Conroy, D. (2002). Factorial and criterion of scores of a measure of

belonging in youth development programs. Educational and Psychological Measurement,

62, 857-876.


Anderson-Butcher, D., Iachini, A., Riley, A., Wade-Mdivanian, R., Davis, J., & Amorose, A. J.

(2013). Exploring the impact of a summer sport-based youth development program.

Evaluation and Program Planning, 37, 64-69.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Riley, A., Amorose, A.J., & Ball, A. (2013, January). Social development

in a sports-based positive youth development program. Presented at the 17th Annual

Conference for the Society for Social Work Research, San Diego, CA.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Wade-Mdivanian, R., Riley, A., & Davis, J. (2010). LiFE Sports 2009

annual camp evaluation report. Columbus, OH: College of Social Work, The Ohio State

University.

Beets, M. W., Beighle, A., Erwin, H. E., & Huberty, J. L. (2009). After-school program impact

on physical activity and fitness: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive

Medicine, 36, 527-537.

Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesma, A. (2006). Positive youth development:

Theory, research, and applications. In R.M.Lerner &W.Damon (Eds.), Handbook of

Child Psychology (6th ed., Vol. 1, Theoretical models of human development, pp. 894–

941). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Coakley, J. (2011). Youth sports: What counts as “Positive development?” Journal of Sport and

Social Issues, 35, 306-324.

Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p <. 05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the

Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation

analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge, New York.


Cortina, J. M., & Landis, R. S. (2009). When small effect sizes tell a big story, and when large

effect sizes don’t. Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine,

verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences, 287-308.

Cox, A., & Williams, L. (2008). The roles of perceived teacher support, motivational climate,

and psychological need satisfaction in students’ physical education motivation. Journal

of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 222-239.

Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth

in college students: theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 85, 894-906.

Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108,

593-623.

Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and

sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290-299.

Fry, M., & Gano-Overway, L. (2010). Exploring the contribution of the caring climate to the

youth sport experience. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 294-304.

Fry, M. D., Guivernau, M., Kim, M. S., Newton, M., Gano–Overway, L. A., & Magyar, T. M.

(2012). Youth perceptions of a caring climate, emotional regulation, and psychological

well-being. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 1, 44-57.

Garn, A. C., McCaughtry, N., Kulik, N. L., Kaseta, M., Maljak, K., Whalen, L., Shen, B.,

Martin, J., & Fahlman, M. (2014). Successful after-school physical activity clubs in

urban high schools: perspectives of adult leaders and student participants. Journal of

Teaching in Physical Education, 33,112-133.

Gould, D., Flett, R., & Lauer, L. (2012). The relationship between psychosocial developmental


and the sports climate experienced by underserved youth. Psychology of Sport and

Exercise, 13, 80-87.

MacDonald D., Côté, J., Eys, M., & Deakin, J. (2011). The role of enjoyment and motivational

climate in relation to the personal development of team sport athletes. The Sport

Psychologist, 25, 32-46.

Maljak, K., Garn, A., McCaughtry, N., Kulik, N., Martin, J., Shen, B., Whalen, L., & Fahlman,

M. (2014). Challenges in offering inner-city after-school physical activity clubs.

American Journal of Health Education, 45, 297-307.

Martin, J. J. (2006). Psychosocial aspects of youth disability sport. Adapted Physical Activity

Quarterly, 23, 65-77.

McDonough, M., Ullrich-French, S., Anderson-Butcher, D., Amorose, T., & Riley, A. (2012).

Social responsibility among low-income youth in physical activity-based positive youth

development programs: scale development and associations with social relationships.

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25, 431-447.

Newton, M., Fry, M., Watson, D., Gano-Overway, L., Kim, M., Magyar, M., & Guivernau, M.

(2007a). Psychometric properties of the caring climate scale in a physical activity setting.

Revista de Psicologia del Deporte, 16, 67-84.

Newton, M., Watson, D., Gano-Overway, L., Fry, M., Kim, M., & Magyar, M. (2007b). The role

of a caring-based intervention in a physical activity setting. The Urban Review, 39, 281-

299.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. Research on

Motivation in Education, 1, 39-73.

Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological


Bulletin, 112, 160-163.

Seifriz, J. J., Duda, J. L., & Chi, L. (1992). The relationship of perceived motivational climate

to intrinsic motivation and beliefs about success in basketball. Journal of Sport &

Exercise Psychology, 14, 375-391.

Skinner, A. C., & Skelton, J. A. (2014). Prevalence and trends in obesity and severe obesity

among children in the United States, 1999-2012. JAMA Pediatrics, 168, 561-566.

Smith, R., Cumming, S., & Smoll, F. (2008). Development and validation of the motivational

climate scale for youth sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 116-136.

Ullrich-French, S., & McDonough, M. H. (2013). Correlates of long-term participation in a

physical activity-based positive youth development program for low-income youth:

Sustained involvement and psychosocial outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 279-288.

Ullrich-French, S., McDonough, M., & Smith, A. (2012). Social connection and psychological

outcomes in a physical activity-based youth development setting. Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport, 83, 431-441.

Ullrich-French, S., & Smith, A. L. (2009). Social and motivational predictors of continued youth

sport participation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 87-95.

US Census Bureau, American Fact Finder. Available at:

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

Walling, M. D., Duda, J. L., & Chi, L. (1993). The perceived motivational climate in sport

questionnaire: Construct and predictive validity. Journal of Sport and Exercise

Psychology, 15, 172-172.

Weiss, M. (2013). Back to the future: Research trends in youth motivation and physical activity.

Pediatric Exercise Science, 25, 561-572.


Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, Skewness, Kurtosis, Alpha's and Pearson Product Correlations for

Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Social Resp

2. Belong 0.50*

3. Task 0.31* 0.45*

4. Ego -0.14* -0.17* 0.08

5. Care 0.51* 0.57* 0.53* -0.16*

6. CCSE -0.03* 0.04 0.26* 0.49* 0.07

Mean 4.50 4.49 4.23 2.90 4.21 4.26

SD 0.67 0.73 0.64 0.89 0.69 1.70

Skewness -1.77 -1.94 -1.20 .51 -1.09 -0.13


Kurtosis 3.08 4.22 2.02 -0.36 1.60 -0.72

Alpha .89 .86 .76 .87 .92 .85

Note. Social Resp = Social Responsibility; Belong = Belonging; Task = Task Motivational

Climate; Ego = Ego Motivational Climate; Care = Caring Climate; CCSE = Contingent

Competition Self-Esteem. * Significant at p < .01

Table 2

Multiple regression results predicting Belonging:

Model Summary

Step R R² F df p < ΔR² F change Sig of F change

1 Variables 0.61 0.37 44.50 4,299 0.001* 0.37 44.50 0.001*

2 Inter 0.63 0.39 19.05 10,293 0.001* 0.02 1.68 0.13

Note. Inter = Interactions; * Significant at p < .01

Multiple regression results predicting Belonging:

Coefficients for Final Model

Variable Standardized

β

t Significance

1. Task 0.19 3.08 0.002*

2. Ego -0.16 -2.73 0.007*

3. Care 0.41 7.15 0.001*

4. CCSW 0.01 0.11 0.91


Interactions

5. Task X Ego 0.10 1.34 0.18

6. Task X Care -0.05 -0.78 0.43

7. Task X CCSE -0.03 -0.45 0.65

8. Ego X Care -0.11 -1.64 0.11

9. Ego X CCSE 0.09 1.50 0.13

10. Care X CCSE 0.12 1.74 0.08***

Note. Task = Task Motivational Climate; Ego = Ego Motivational Climate; Care = Caring

Climate; CCSE = Contingent Competition Self-Esteem..

* Significant at p < .01; ** Significant at p < .05, *** Significant at p < .10

Table 3

Multiple regression results predicting Social Responsibility:

Model Summary

Step R R² F Df p < ΔR² F change Sig of F change

1 Variables 0.52 0.27 27.98 4,299 0.001* 0.27 27.98 0.001*

2 Inter 0.56 0.31 13.40 10,293 0.001* 0.04 2.95 0.008*

Note. Inter = Interactions; * Significant at p < .01

Multiple regression results predicting Social Responsibility:

Coefficients for Final Model

Variable Standardized

β

t Significance

1. Task 0.07 0.97 0.34

2. Ego -0.05 -0.80 0.42

3. Care 0.46 7.46 0.001*


4. CCSE -0.12 -1.99 0.05**

Interactions

5. Task X Ego 0.18 2.28 0.02**

6. Task X Care -0.08 -1.05 0.30

7. Task X CCSE -0.03 -0.41 0.69

8. Ego X Care -0.15 -2.12 0.04**

9. Ego X CCSE -0.01 -0.19 0.85

10. Care X CCSE 0.19 2.66 0.01*

Note. Task = Task Motivational Climate; Ego = Ego Motivational Climate; Care = Caring

Climate; CCSE = Contingent Competition Self-Esteem..

* Significant at p < .01; ** Significant at p < .05, *** Significant at p < .10

Figure 1

Figure 1. Simple slopes tests with Care Climate x Contingent Competitive Self-Esteem

predicting Belonging.

Figure 2

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

Low Care High Care

Bel

on

gin

g

Low CSE

High CSE


Figure 2. Simple slopes tests with the Care Climate x Contingent Competitive Self-Esteem

predicting Social Responsibility.

Figure 3

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

Low Care High Care

Soci

al

Res

pon

sib

ilit

y

Low CSE

High CSE

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

Low Care High Care

Soci

al

Res

pon

sib

ilit

y

Low Ego

High Ego


Figure 3. Simple slopes tests with Care Climate x Ego Climate predicting Social Responsibility.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Simple slopes tests with Task Climate x Ego Climate predicting Social Responsibility

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

Low Task High Task

Soci

al

Res

pon

sib

ilit

y

Low Ego

High Ego

predicting social responsibility and belonging in urban

Documents